Restoration of assets under the PMLA requires adherence to procedural mandates, specifically necessitating completion of charge framing before claims can be approved.

ORDER :

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

The present Criminal Revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2025 made in Crl.MP.No.1053 of 2025 in Spl.C.C.No.02 of 2021

2. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.S.Ravi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Cibi Vishnu, learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. Mr.Vijaya Naryan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been embroiled in various litigations including the proceedings under PMLA Act. He would submit that the appellant had independently borrowed monies from the second respondent and had also stood as a guarantor for the third respondent for a loan that had been serviced by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent. He would submit that as regards to the third respondent, the second respondent had instituted proceedings before the Debut Recovery Tribunal in the year 2017. As against the third respondent Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) proceedings were also initiated, wherein a Liquidator was appointed and the third respondent was sold as a going concern to one M/s.Agniti Industrial Parks Private Limited. The sale was also approved by the NCLT, Chennai. He would submit that during the entire proceedings as against the third respondent before the NCLT, the second respondent had not made any claim as against the third respondent much as claimed which it had made before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Having not made any claim against the third respondent in the IBC proceedings, after the disposal of the NCLT proceedings, the second respondent had secured a decree in the recovery proceedings initiated by it as against the third respondent as a borrower and the petitioner as a guarantor for a sum of Rs.3,77,272.87/- by a decree dated 13.07.2021.

4. He would submit that the conduct of the second respondent which is a public institution in not making a claim of the said amount before the NCLT as against the third respondent and having knowledge that the third respondent had been sold to as a going concern to a third party, had not substituted the said third party before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and had obtained a decree which according to him is nothing but an abuse of the judicial process, making such judicial process wholly non-est and unenforceable. But, however on the strength of the decree, further proceedings were initiated and properties belonging to the petitioner was attached. He would submit that it is pertinent to note that already the first respondent had attached the properties under the PMLA Act which is pending adjudication before the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act.

5. He would submit that as against the petitioner, insolvency proceedings before the NCLT were initiated by the second respondent and it had claimed that the petitioner is a borrower and also a guarantor to another Company which is a corporate debtor to it. Such proceedings was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2019 and even in the said proceedings, the claim as against the petitioner on the guarantee given to the third respondent company was not a part of its claim.

6. He would submit that the Committee of creditors accepted a resolution plan, but however the same was rejected by the NCLT and by the NCLAT on the Appeal filed by the Director of the petitioner. As against the said proceedings, Special Leave Petitions were preferred and the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the Prov